I understood your first response. I suspect that the relationship is not linear because the distortions do not operate independently but must be taken together. Each distortion affects the other. The interrelationship requires the Lorentz solution. It is interesting that Poincare who completed the Lorentz transforms knew the possibility of the electromagnetic nature of the universe.

But I'm afraid it's not good enough to say "I suspect" or talk about "distortions" without defining exactly what those distortions are and explaining why and how they occur. I'm sorry, but I think this represents a big gap in your explanation.

The Lorentz solution explains the relationship between speed and the degree of time dilation by saying that the sum of the speed through space-time is always 'c' i.e. the sum of the vectors of the rate of movement through space and time always equals 'c'.

Without your 'distortions', the relationship between the rates of movement through time and space appears to be linear to me, and need these undefined and unexplained distortions to account for the anomaly. But you have just replaced one anomaly with another.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

If the sun (for example) was consuming the vacuum around it, then why don't the planets move closer to the sun?

In classic gravity, they have diagonal momentum which keeps them in orbit, but if the space between them and the sun is shrinking then they would move closer wouldn't they?

I think its a really creative theory and deserves more readers, its a good start and you on your way to something big I hope.

The model does not change the way gravity works in space, it tries to explain what causes it to work. The vacuum in space is like water in a bathtub, and the sun is like an open drain. As the water in the tub drains, all of the water moves toward the drain and tends to carry objects in the water toward the drain. As the sun consumes vacuum, all of the vacuum in space moves toward it, tending to drag the planets (for example) with it. Because the planets are in orbits, they have orbital velocities which creates centrifugal accelerations that counters the drag and keeps them in their orbits.

Note that since the sun is consuming vacuum at a constant rate, near the sun, vacuum is moving at a faster rate toward it than at distances far away from the sun. The rate the vacuum moves toward the sun through a sun-centered spherical surface with radius R is 10,000 times faster that that of a sun-centered spherical surface of 100R. This is the case with the orbits of Mercury (58 million km) and Pluto (5,800 million km) around the sun. The orbital speed of Mercury is 48 km/s, which makes its centrifugal acceleration (v^2/r) about 4E-5 km/sec^2, whereas the orbital speed of Pluto is about 4.7 km/s, making its centrifugal acceleration about 4E-9 (about 1/10,000 that of Mercury). This indicates that at very large distances from the sun, for all practical purposes, the vacuum is not moving toward the sun at all.

Now either you model vacuum as something intrinsically empty or as something containing a hidden energy? Which of them do you see it as Atom Smasher?

And then you seem to say that this vacuum gets eaten by mass (invariant) if i got it right?

Assuming that vacuum, even if empty, still contains and constrains 'distances' like between the moon and Earth and the Sun,you still need to define it as 'something' as it contains that distance. This 'something' must then somehow replenish itself as we otherwise would shrink all distances as the vacuum gets 'eaten' by mass.

If you assume that it contains a hidden energy you must also somehow explain why the concentration of that 'energy' doesn't show up as f ex. a disturbed 'space' around mass, containing a higher 'density' of 'virtual photons'?

Now either you model vacuum as something intrinsically empty or as something containing a hidden energy? Which of them do you see it as Atom Smasher?

And then you seem to say that this vacuum gets eaten by mass (invariant) if i got it right?

Assuming that vacuum, even if empty, still contains and constrains 'distances' like between the moon and Earth and the Sun,you still need to define it as 'something' as it contains that distance. This 'something' must then somehow replenish itself as we otherwise would shrink all distances as the vacuum gets 'eaten' by mass.

I am proposing that vacuum is "something", but not what we traditionally think of as "something". It is not matter or energy, the things we normally consider "something", but it does exist as an entity in the universe that can affect what we commonly think of as "something" (matter and energy). A crude analogy may be found in real and imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are not real numbers, but operations performed with just imaginary numbers can produce, and therefore affect, real numbers (e.g., i*i = - 1).

The dimensions of the gravitational constant suggest that each kilogram of mass a body possesses is somehow associated with a volume of "something" being consumed per unit time. I am suggesting that since there does not appear to be matter (as we know it) disappearing, that it is the vacuum (discussed above) being consumed.

I am further suggesting that the existence of matter may be tied to the consumption of vacuum. I am speculating that mass is the product (or byproduct) of the vacuum consumption process. In other words, the gravitational constant may be indicating the amount of mass that is produced as a result of a volume of vacuum being consumed or used by an, as yet, undiscovered physical process.

As for the supply of vacuum, for now I am assuming an infinite universe provides an infinite supply of vacuum. Consequently, the vacuum that is used up by gravity is continuously backfilled by the infinite supply.

Ok, although I disagree on vacuum not being 'real' Or maybe you meant that it was real after all?

You comparing it to imaginary numbers confuse me a little.

To me it contains distance, therefore it exist as a constituent of SpaceTime. Therefore it is real, as 'real' as anything else that have a geometrical form.But your idea of vacuum creating mass is definitely a new one to me.

So where would you think that infinite supply of vacuum would come from?

Ok, although I disagree on vacuum not being 'real' Or maybe you meant that it was real after all?

You comparing it to imaginary numbers confuse me a little.

To me it contains distance, therefore it exist as a constituent of SpaceTime. Therefore it is real, as 'real' as anything else that have a geometrical form.But your idea of vacuum creating mass is definitely a new one to me.

So where would you think that infinite supply of vacuum would come from?

I do believe the vacuum is real. I just believe it is something that we cannot sense directly. Can't grab a sample of it for analysis.

My analogy with the imaginary numbers was probably a poor one. Just disregard it.

Infinity is infinity. If there is an infinite supply, there is always more to replace what is used. The universe is believed to be infinite and expanding. Perhaps more vacuum is made as the universe expands. This is certainly a question that must be addressed at some point; however, right now I'm just trying to establish the framework of the model so that this and other aspects of it can be explored.

I appreciate and welcome your questions and interest. Please do not hesitate to challenge the fundamentals of what I'm proposing. I have no problem with modifying or even abandoning a line of thought if I am convinced it is ill-conceived. I just want to make sure the idea gets a fair evaluation.

The other way to see it is that matter is what creates space, or rather that matter and space craves each other to exist. The last one is the one I lean too, even though it is matter that will 'expand' space as seen from a neutron stars perspective. How do you explain that space 'grows' around mass?

But I'm afraid it's not good enough to say "I suspect" or talk about "distortions" without defining exactly what those distortions are and explaining why and how they occur. I'm sorry, but I think this represents a big gap in your explanation.

The speculation does explain why and how the distortions occur [] I only suspect, because it is speculation. I am happy just to be self consistent.

Well, there's no saying you're wrong, but there's no saying you're right either. At this level we're dealing with concepts below what is known to be fundamental; it's all speculation until someone comes up with a provable experiment.

(Oh yeah - and the funds to conduct the experiment)

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

Well, there's no saying you're wrong, but there's no saying you're right either. At this level we're dealing with concepts below what is known to be fundamental; it's all speculation until someone comes up with a provable experiment.

(Oh yeah - and the funds to conduct the experiment)

Well, if at least the experiment was defined, it would be a good start. Funding might come later - or much later.

Logged

There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

All experiments yet devised in the history of mankind do support it. The problem is that our definition of reality is so vague that the proofs do not matter. For example, once we accept variable space-time as the norm, all the proofs that rely upon relativity phenomena go out the window. It's like trying to build an elaborate structure with an elastic measure.

Edit: The "it" that is supported is the contention that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

My speculations are mere speculations that I hope are self consistent and show that the contention might be the most fundamental reality in this universe.

A new model of gravity is offered at:http://www.my-read.com/What_is_gravity.html. This new model proposes that since:(1) a body accelerating toward another body due to gravity seems driven only by the other body, i.e., something that the other body is influencing is causing it to move; and(2) bodies accelerated in space void of gravitational fields experience gravity-like pushes on them as a result of the acceleration per Einstein's equivalence theory in general relativity, i.e., when bodies are accelerated in space, something pushes against them; and

(3) the units of the universal gravitational constant reduce down to a volumetric consumption rate per unit of mass (cubic-meters per second-squared per kilogram in the mks system of units;

gravity can be modeled as the flow generated toward a mass as that mass consumes the vacuum around it.

Mass consumes vacuum at the rate specified by the universal gravitational constant. The greater the mass the more vacuum consumed per unit time and the stronger the flow of vacuum toward the mass. The flowing vacuum drags unrestricted bodies with it toward the consuming mass, producing the effect of gravity.

The model acknowledges that while vacuum is not commonly thought of as a substance (not matter or energy as we know them), Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration in general relativity suggests that the vacuum does interact with matter and energy. Vacuum is the only thing in empty space that can push against bodies.

The suggestion that mass is constantly consuming vacuum may also provide some insight into its nature. Does mass exist because it is burning vacuum? Is the consumption of vacuum vital to some other aspect of a stable universe and mass is a fortunate byproduct? Who knows? What are some of your thoughts on the proposal?

This gravity theory (in 2009) is similar to Cahill's & to Ranzan's who both go back to about 2002. The vacuum inflow is actually aether inflow, into mass where aether is annihilated, the acceleration of the inflow giving gravity.

A new model of gravity is offered at:http://www.my-read.com/What_is_gravity.html. This new model proposes that since:(1) a body accelerating toward another body due to gravity seems driven only by the other body, i.e., something that the other body is influencing is causing it to move; and(2) bodies accelerated in space void of gravitational fields experience gravity-like pushes on them as a result of the acceleration per Einstein's equivalence theory in general relativity, i.e., when bodies are accelerated in space, something pushes against them; and

(3) the units of the universal gravitational constant reduce down to a volumetric consumption rate per unit of mass (cubic-meters per second-squared per kilogram in the mks system of units;

gravity can be modeled as the flow generated toward a mass as that mass consumes the vacuum around it.

Mass consumes vacuum at the rate specified by the universal gravitational constant. The greater the mass the more vacuum consumed per unit time and the stronger the flow of vacuum toward the mass. The flowing vacuum drags unrestricted bodies with it toward the consuming mass, producing the effect of gravity.

The model acknowledges that while vacuum is not commonly thought of as a substance (not matter or energy as we know them), Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration in general relativity suggests that the vacuum does interact with matter and energy. Vacuum is the only thing in empty space that can push against bodies.

The suggestion that mass is constantly consuming vacuum may also provide some insight into its nature. Does mass exist because it is burning vacuum? Is the consumption of vacuum vital to some other aspect of a stable universe and mass is a fortunate byproduct? Who knows? What are some of your thoughts on the proposal?

This gravity theory (in 2009) is similar to Cahill's & to Ranzan's who both go back to about 2002. The vacuum inflow is actually aether inflow, into mass where aether is annihilated, the acceleration of the inflow giving gravity.

Interesting that this old thread is revived and that the connection between the vacuum energy density of space (Cosmological Constant), and Aether inflow into mass is made. The conclusion of the last post is that the aether inflow gives gravity, and in that sense I interpret the action as an exchange, requiring the presence of mass and energy density in space.

The exchange is between the vacuum energy density of space, which is the inflow to maintain the presence of mass, and the gravitational wave energy out flow from mass that traverses space between massive objects and becomes the inflowing gravitational wave energy of distant massive objects.

The action, then, is that gravitational wave energy is emitted by massive objects, and is absorbed by surrounding massive objects; a continual process of gravitational wave energy exchange.

The Quantum Mechanics of that process would be referred to as quantum action, where gravitational wave energy carries energy through space, gravitational waves intersect in space, the intersections between directional gravitational waves cause a convergence at a point in space, the resulting energy carried to the point of convergence by the converging waves is associated with a quantum of energy, and the quanta have a hint of mass at the point of convergence.

The existence of those hints of mass, in vast numbers, surrounding massive objects in space, is one explanation for dark matter. If so, the vacuum of space contains a huge amount of wave energy, coming and going in all directions from a potentially infinite history of gravitational wave energy inflow and out flow from mass. This action would mean that space would be filled with wave intersections, and their resulting quanta, that then contribute to maintaining the presence of massive objects, and those massive objects would move in the direction of the net highest directional source of inflowing gravitational wave energy from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

This gravity theory (in 2009) is similar to Cahill's & to Ranzan's who both go back to about 2002. The vacuum inflow is actually aether inflow, into mass where aether is annihilated, the acceleration of the inflow giving gravity.

Interesting that this old thread is revived and that the connection between the vacuum energy density of space (Cosmological Constant), and Aether inflow into mass is made. The conclusion of the last post is that the aether inflow gives gravity, and in that sense I interpret the action as an exchange, requiring the presence of mass and energy density in space.The exchange is between the vacuum energy density of space, which is the inflow to maintain the presence of mass, and the gravitational wave energy out flow from mass that traverses space between massive objects and becomes the inflowing gravitational wave energy of distant massive objects.

I think that in aether theory mass is a process. If it annihilates aether then it has mass, & every quantum thing has mass (free photons & confined photons make every quantum thing we see & feel)(the photon is the fundamental or primary elementary particle)(albeit a quasi-particle).And i think that gravity doesnt use energy or have energy. But i think that gravity waves (ie a change in gravity) can transmit energy (i know that this sounds silly)(its complicated), which is sort of what u said.

The Quantum Mechanics of that process would be referred to as quantum action, where gravitational wave energy carries energy through space, gravitational waves intersect in space, the intersections between directional gravitational waves cause a convergence at a point in space, the resulting energy carried to the point of convergence by the converging waves is associated with a quantum of energy, and the quanta have a hint of mass at the point of convergence.

I am thinking that there is no quanta of GW energy. I dont understand quantum stuff but i think that praps quantum stuff is valid in other forms of energy, but not in GWs.

The existence of those hints of mass, in vast numbers, surrounding massive objects in space, is one explanation for dark matter. If so, the vacuum of space contains a huge amount of wave energy, coming and going in all directions from a potentially infinite history of gravitational wave energy inflow and out flow from mass. This action would mean that space would be filled with wave intersections, and their resulting quanta, that then contribute to maintaining the presence of massive objects, and those massive objects would move in the direction of the net highest directional source of inflowing gravitational wave energy from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

I doubt that GWs have energy (but they can transmit energy). EM radiation possibly doesnt have energy either (but can transmit energy)(not sure)(& probly has mass). But photons definitely have energy (& mass).

I think that in aether theory mass is a process. If it annihilates aether then it has mass, & every quantum thing has mass (free photons & confined photons make every quantum thing we see & feel)(the photon is the fundamental or primary elementary particle)(albeit a quasi-particle).And i think that gravity doesnt use energy or have energy. But i think that gravity waves (ie a change in gravity) can transmit energy (i know that this sounds silly)(its complicated), which is sort of what u said.

Yes i think GWs can exchange energy from object to object. But re massive objects, there is no other kind.

I am thinking that there is no quanta of GW energy. I dont understand quantum stuff but i think that praps quantum stuff is valid in other forms of energy, but not in GWs.

I doubt that GWs have energy (but they can transmit energy). EM radiation possibly doesnt have energy either (but can transmit energy)(not sure)(& probly has mass). But photons definitely have energy (& mass).

You may be right. What I have done is try to connect some known science to the as yet unknowns.

1) Take for example the first thing you said, “In aether theory, mass is a process”. Is it a process you can describe, or is it one of the unknowns that I mentioned?

2) Can we talk about mass as if the mass of the entire universe exists and/or functions in accord with that process?

3) Do you have a position on if mass has always existed, or was there a beginning point out of which the presence of mass emerged?

I know that is an "as yet" unknown, so the answer, :"we don't know:" is fine, but if we are to go on to discuss what we think, you have to say what you think is the answer to question #3.

I think that in aether theory mass is a process. If it annihilates aether then it has mass, & every quantum thing has mass (free photons & confined photons make every quantum thing we see & feel)(the photon is the fundamental or primary elementary particle)(albeit a quasi-particle).And i think that gravity doesnt use energy or have energy. But i think that gravity waves (ie a change in gravity) can transmit energy (i know that this sounds silly)(its complicated), which is sort of what u said.Yes i think GWs can exchange energy from object to object. But re massive objects, there is no other kind.I am thinking that there is no quanta of GW energy. I dont understand quantum stuff but i think that praps quantum stuff is valid in other forms of energy, but not in GWs.I doubt that GWs have energy (but they can transmit energy). EM radiation possibly doesnt have energy either (but can transmit energy)(not sure)(& probly has mass). But photons definitely have energy (& mass).

You may be right. What I have done is try to connect some known science to the as yet unknowns.1) Take for example the first thing you said, “In aether theory, mass is a process”. Is it a process you can describe, or is it one of the unknowns that I mentioned?2) Can we talk about mass as if the mass of the entire universe exists and/or functions in accord with that process?3) Do you have a position on if mass has always existed, or was there a beginning point out of which the presence of mass emerged?I know that is an "as yet" unknown, so the answer, :"we don't know:" is fine, but if we are to go on to discuss what we think, you have to say what you think is the answer to question #3.

1) I read Conrad Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe, & Reg Cahill's process physics. Aether is annihilated in mass & resistance to the accelerating inflow of aether replacing the lost aether requires a force which we call gravity. Inertia is the reciprocal. There is no such thing as mass, it is just the property of annihilating aether. There is no such thing as mass kg -- all we have is inertia & inertial force -- mass is measured by inertial force methods. There is probly no such thing as the annihilation of aether -- annihilation is probly just a change in the state of something -- eg aether might be an excited state of an underlying substance called say praether. And gravity is due to the bulk flow of aether. Whereas other things like photons (& em radiation) are due to the excitation (vibration spin swirl etc) of aether. As is usual any attempt to explain something raises even deeper questions. Anyhow every quantum thing or force or anything that we feel or see are all due to a process involving praether.

2) Ranzan describes an infinite universe made of cells where aether is created & destroyed, & photons are made & destroyed (& photons are the fundamental quantum particle). Aether has no mass & is subquantum. Re gravity, aether merely transmits force tween quantum particles, the transmission travelling at well over 20 billion c kmps (i think praps at 500 billion c), transmission being a reverberation process.

3) The process that gives us mass has always existed. However mass is continually created & destroyed inside every Ranzan cell, the process lasting say umpteen years. Lemmeseenow -- if a cell is 200 million lightyears across, & the average aether flow from center to edge is say 1000 kmps (ie c/300), then the journey takes 30 billion years. Photons are made early on in that journey & photons become confined photons a bit later (forming electrons quarks etc), & then atoms & stars etc are formed later, & near the end near the edge we have concentrations of galaxies & blackholes etc, & mass is annihilated in blackholes (not silly Einsteinian blackholes, these dont exist). So praps the average photon (the primary fundamental elementary quantum particle) lasts for say 60 billion years. Ranzan describes annihilation of mass in blackholes, ie everything reverts to plain old boring praether (my term)(Ranzan doesnt say praether).

1) I read Conrad Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe, & Reg Cahill's process physics. Aether is annihilated in mass & resistance to the accelerating inflow of aether replacing the lost aether requires a force which we call gravity. Inertia is the reciprocal. There is no such thing as mass, it is just the property of annihilating aether. There is no such thing as mass kg -- all we have is inertia & inertial force -- mass is measured by inertial force methods. There is probly no such thing as the annihilation of aether -- annihilation is probly just a change in the state of something -- eg aether might be an excited state of an underlying substance called say praether. And gravity is due to the bulk flow of aether. Whereas other things like photons (& em radiation) are due to the excitation (vibration spin swirl etc) of aether. As is usual any attempt to explain something raises even deeper questions. Anyhow every quantum thing or force or anything that we feel or see are all due to a process involving praether.

2) Ranzan describes an infinite universe made of cells where aether is created & destroyed, & photons are made & destroyed (& photons are the fundamental quantum particle). Aether has no mass & is subquantum. Re gravity, aether merely transmits force tween quantum particles, the transmission travelling at well over 20 billion c kmps (i think praps at 500 billion c), transmission being a reverberation process.

3) The process that gives us mass has always existed. However mass is continually created & destroyed inside every Ranzan cell, the process lasting say umpteen years. Lemmeseenow -- if a cell is 200 million lightyears across, & the average aether flow from center to edge is say 1000 kmps (ie c/300), then the journey takes 30 billion years. Photons are made early on in that journey & photons become confined photons a bit later (forming electrons quarks etc), & then atoms & stars etc are formed later, & near the end near the edge we have concentrations of galaxies & blackholes etc, & mass is annihilated in blackholes (not silly Einsteinian blackholes, these dont exist). So praps the average photon (the primary fundamental elementary quantum particle) lasts for say 60 billion years. Ranzan describes annihilation of mass in blackholes, ie everything reverts to plain old boring praether (my term)(Ranzan doesnt say praether).

Thank you for filling me in on that.

I am also an advocate of a dynamic steady state universe, but from the way you describe Conrad Ranzan’s dynamic steady state universe and Reg Cahill's process physics, the dynamics and processes don’t seem to correspond to the same universe that I envision, lol.

However, I always say when discussing the universe, we are all talking about the same universe, and we share the same observables. The words we use to describe what we see may differ, and the processes that we imagine to be at work quickly diverge into a patchwork that arises from different explanations for what we see.

The reason I invoke a steady state universe is that I start with the premise that there is one universe, it has always existed, it is infinite spatially, and is filled with an infinite amount of energy and matter. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ranzan would say something similar.

Since I refer to the universe as already being infinite spatially, I don't describe it as expanding as a whole. However, since I opened with the statement that we share the same observables, and it is generally accepted that our observable universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, that might seem to be an oxymoron. I reconcile it by my answer to the question, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs?”. My answer to that question is that the universe is a dynamic, steady state, multiple big bang universe.

That means that I envision the universe on a grand scale to be a landscape of multiple, active, expanding big bang arenas, and each arena arises from the same general preconditions. I describe those conditions by describing the process of Big Bang Arena Action that is going on all across the landscape of the greater universe. The action describes expanding big bang arenas that converge, overlap, contribute their galactic matter and energy to swirling rendezvouses, and that accretion, under the compression of gravity, forms big crunches here and there, across the landscape. Those big crunches reach a critical capacity, and collapse/bang into expanding big bang arenas. Our observable universe, called our Hubble view, is the observable portion of just one of those expanding big bang arenas.

Unfortunately we dont share observables. Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasnt null. And now we are in the Einsteinian Dark Age, exacerbated by that idiot Hawking.

The universe aint expanding, & the expansion aint accelerating, hencely no bigbang. Ranzan explains how a photon's progress throo each cell causes extension of the photon during entry & during exit, giving redshift. Praps his best idea.

Unfortunately we dont share observables. Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasnt null. And now we are in the Einsteinian Dark Age, exacerbated by that idiot Hawking.The universe aint expanding, & the expansion aint accelerating, hencely no bigbang. Ranzan explains how a photon's progress throo each cell causes extension of the photon during entry & during exit, giving redshift. Praps his best idea.

Can understand where you are coming from. Right in line with what I said about having the same observables if you couple that statement with the words I used in stipulation: we describe what we see in different words, and we explain what we see based on different explanations. Nothing wrong with that.Now Ranzan is unknown to me, except through your reference, and if he is a dynamic steady state thinker, he and I would have some common ground. Where it goes from here is based on evidence and logic. I gave you some of mine, and that thinking has me posting endless volumes of related word salad that people have no problem passing up, but that those same people give me a pass on because much of it is logic, and much of it is unfalsifiable. It just sort of sits there, and we wait to see if mold forms on it, lol.Now if you throw all the offerings out before they show mold, get falsified, or are refuted by some logic, and replace it with something that requires us to reinterpret the discovery of fire and ice, and other generally accepted science, you (and Ranzan) risk being left right off the menu.I need some more on what you mean, “Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasnt null”. Give me a link or something to at least think about. We can get to Hawking later if you want.